Model validity and risk of bias in randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment

Complementary Therapies in Medicine

Volumn 25, Issue , 2016, Pages 120-125

  Mathie, Robert T ^a   Wassenhoven, Michel Van ^b   Jacobs, Jennifer ^c   Oberbaum, Menachem ^d   Frye, Joyce ^e   Manchanda, Raj K ^f   Roniger, Helmut ^g   Dantas, Flávio ^h   Legg, Lynn A ⁱ   Clausen, Jürgen ^j   Moss, Sian ^k   Davidson, Jonathan R T ^l   Lloyd, Suzanne M ^m   Ford, Ian ^m   Fisher, Peter ^g  

^a BRITISH HOMEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION   (United Kingdom)

^b LMHI Research Secretary   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d SHAARE ZEDEK MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f GOVERNMENT OF INDIA   (India)

^g UCL Hospitals NHS Trust   (United Kingdom)

^h FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF UBERLÂNDIA   (Brazil)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^j Karl und Veronica Carstens Stiftung   (Germany)

^k Homeopathy Research Institute   (United Kingdom)

^l DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Individualised homeopathy; Meta analysis; Model validity; Randomised placebo controlled trials; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HOMEOPATHY; HUMAN; INDIVIDUALISED HOMEOPATHY; MODEL VALIDITY; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RELIABILITY; RISK OF BIAS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDITY; META ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; RISK; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

PLACEBO;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HOMEOPATHY; HUMANS; PLACEBOS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK;

EID: 84962428722     PISSN: 09652299     EISSN: 18736963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Mathie RT, Legg LA, Clausen J, Davidson JRT, Lloyd SM, Ford I. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled, trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: study protocol. Version 1.0; 25 January 2013. http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Study_protocol_for_systematic_review.pdf.
2. Mathie R.T., Lloyd S.M., Legg L.A., et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014, 3:142.
3. Mathie RT, Van Wassenhoven M, Jacobs J, et al., Model validity of randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy. 2015; 104: 164-169.
4. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al., on behalf of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group. Chapter 12: interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (Eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
5. Mathie R.T., Roniger H., Van Wassenhoven M., et al. Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12:49.
6. Higgins J.P.T., Altman D.G., Sterne J.A.C. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Version 5.1.0 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration. J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.).
7. Aust N. Response to Robert T Mathie: 'Assessing the validity of clinical trial data in homeopathy does not require an engineer's tools'. FACT 2014, 19:175.
8. El Dib R.P., Atallah A.N., Andriolo R.B. Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care. J Eval Clin Pract 2007, 13:689-692.
9. Aickin M. Commentary on Mathie RT et al. Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: multi-rater concordance study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:240.
10. Bornhöft G., Maxion-Bergemann S., Wolf U., et al. Checklist for the qualitative evaluation of clinical studies with particular focus on external validity and model validity. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:56.